Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732214 Volker Fröhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> 2011-10-07 17:29:54 EDT --- Review: [+] Good [-] Needs work [0] Does not apply MUST: ===== [+] rpmlint: [makerpm@fedora15 otf2bdf-3.1-1.fc14.src]$ rpmlint ../otf2bdf-3.1-1.fc15.src.rpm ../../RPMS/x86_64/otf2bdf-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [+] Naming according to the Package Naming Guidelines [+] Spec file matches base package name [+] Packaging guidelines met [+] License approved for Fedora [+] License field in spec matches code [+] License file included, if source package includes it (inside the README) [+] Spec in American English [+] Spec is legible [+] Sources match upstream md5sum: 4c4e46490d2906d35abb3d3fc72051a3 [+] Compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one primary architecture [0] ExcludeArch is specified and commented [0] Locales are handled correctly [+] All build dependencies listed [0] Calls ldconfig for its shared libraries [+] No bundled system libraries [0] Stated as relocatable package [+] Owns all its directories or requires package that does [+] No file listing duplicates [+] File permissions correct [+] Consistent use of macros [+] Code or permissible content [0] Large documentation in -doc subpackage [+] No runtime dependency of files listed as %doc [0] Header files in -devel subpackage [0] Static files in -static subpackage [0] Library files without suffix in -devel subpackage [0] Devel-package requires base package [0] No .la libtool archives [0] GUI application includes properly installed %{name}.desktop file [+] No files or directories owned, that other packages own [+] Filenames in packages are UTF-8 SHOULD: ======= [0] Query upstream if no license text is included [+] Package builds in mock: Tried epel-6-i386 and fedora-15-s86_64 [?] Package works as described -- Doesn't crash and produces output that looks OK [0] Scriptlets are sane, if used [0] Subpackages other than -devel should require base package (versioned) [0] pkgconfig files in -devel subpackage [0] Dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself [+] Contain man pages, where they make sense -------- APPROVED -------- Suggestions: - What I mentioned in the first comments - You can use the name macro in the install and files section - Change %{_mandir}/man1/*.1.* %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.* as it is less generic -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review